CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

The State of Jammu and Kashmir has historically remained independent, except in the anarchical conditions of the late 18th and first half of the 19th century, or when incorporated in the vast empires set up by the Mauryas (3 rd century BC), the Mughals (16th to 18th century) and the British (mid-19th to mid-20th century). All these empires included not only present-day India and Pakistan but some other countries of the region as well. Until 1846, Kashmir was part of the Sikh empire. In that year, the British defeated the Sikhs and sold Kashmir to Gulab Singh of Jammu for Rs. 7.5 million under the Treaty of Amritsar. Gulab Singh, the Mahraja, signed a separate treaty with the British which gave him the status of an independent princely ruler of Kashmir. Gulab Singh died in 1857 and was replaced by Rambir Singh (1857-1885). Two other Marajas, Partab Singh (1885-1925) and Hari Singh (1925-1949) ruled in succession. Gulab Singh and his successors ruled Kashmir in a tyrannical and repressive way. The people of Kashmir, nearly 80 per cent of who were Muslims, rose against Maharaja Hari Singh's rule. He ruthlessly crushed a mass uprising in 1931. In 1932, Sheikh Abdullah formed Kashmir's first political partythe All Jammu & Kashmir Muslim Conference (renamed as National Conference in 1939). In 1934, the Maharaja gave way and allowed limited democracy in the form of a Legislative Assembly. However, unease with the Maharaja's rule continued. According to the instruments of partition of India, the rulers of princely states were given the choice to freely accede to either India or Pakistan, or to remain independent. They were, however, advised to accede to the contiguous dominion, taking into consideration the geographical and ethnic issues. In Kashmir, however, the Maharaja hesitated. The principally Muslim population, having seen the early and covert arrival of Indian troops, rebelled and things got out of the Maharaja's hands. The people of Kashmir were demanding to join Pakistan. The Maharaja, fearing tribal warfare, eventually gave way to the Indian pressure and agreed to join India by, as India claims, signing' the controversial Instrument of Accession on 26 October 1947. Kashmir was provisionally accepted into the Indian Union pending a

free and impartial plebiscite. This was spelled out in a letter from the Governor General of India, Lord Mountbatten, to the Maharaja on 27 October 1947. In the letter, accepting the accession, Mountbatten made it clear that the State would only be incorporated into the Indian Union after a reference had been made to the people of Kashmir. Having accepted the principle of a plebiscite, India has since obstructed all attempts at holding a plebiscite. In 1947, India and Pakistan went to war over Kashmir. During the war, it was India which first took the Kashmir dispute to the United Nations on 1 January 1948. The following year, on 1 January 1949, the UN helped enforce ceasefire between the two countries. The ceasefire line is called the Line of Control. It was an outcome of a mutual consent by India and Pakistan that the UN Security Council (UNSC) and UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) passed several resolutions in years following the 1947-48 war. The UNSC Resolution of 21 April 1948--one of the principal UN resolutions on Kashmirstated that both India and Pakistan desire that the question of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan should be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite. Subsequent UNSC Resolutions reiterated the same stand. UNCIP Resolutions of 3 August 1948 and 5 January 1949 reinforced UNSC resolutions. (Pakistan Mission to United Nations, 2012).

1.2

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Kashmir issue has been the core cause for strained relations between India and Pakistan. Both the countries have fought three wars on this issue. Primarily, Kashmir issue was conceived as the issue of incomplete Redcliff Award ultimately it was considered as a boundary issue. But with the passage of time its nature has kept on changing. It has been claimed to be a religious, cultural, and economic issue. So the true nature of Kashmir issue is still ambiguous.

1.3

OBJECTIVE OF RESEARCH

The objective of the research is to: 1. 2. 3. 4. Dissect the true nature of Kashmir issue. Comprehend the causes of poor relations between Indo-Pak in general. Evaluate the various efforts to resolve the issue of Kashmir. Explore the possible solutions of the issue.

1.4

ARGUMENTS

Kashmir issue is not simply a territorial issue between India and Pakistan; rather it is economic, cultural and religious issue.

1.5

METHODOLOGY

This thesis uses historico-political approach for this research. This research will use secondary data which will be collected from books, journals, news papers and reports of various organizations. The data will be collected from Central Library of the University and Online resources as well.

1.6

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

Significance of this research will lies in the potential of Kashmir issue for both bringing peace and stability to the area through its resolution or destruction due to sustained tension and military buildup between Pakistan and India. This research was focused to dissect the true nature of the Kashmir. Issue since independence India and Pakistan four wars primarily to this issue. During the course of history Kashmir issue has been comprehended as the consequences of Incomplete Radcliff award, boarder dispute. However over a period of time it took various diemensions,it came to be regarded as an issue of natural resources distribution, or an issue between two faiths, or the resulting humanitarian crises gave it a different shape. These complexities required further exploration of the issue because it is only logical to expect a fair end to the issue, once the nature of the issue becomes clear.